However, as stated (supra) all the accused persons have committed very serious offence as against the society. Thereby, there is huge loss to the exchequer and also the benefits to the original farmers were denied. Thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required in this case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 21. Accordingly, all the criminal original petitions are dismissed. 08.07.2022 ata G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. For police add pp damotharan argued

RESERVED ON : 04.07.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.07.2022
Crl.O.P.Nos.11421, 11311, 11295, 11750, 12492,
12488, 12667, 13029, 12567, 12570, 12572, 12578, 13731, 14781 & 12082 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent
police for the alleged offences under Section 166, 167, 120B and 420 of IPC in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is related to, malpractices and
irregularities committed by the officials namely the Regional Managers and Procurement Officers and staffs/petitioners of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (herein after called as TNCSC), Tiruvannamalai Region, in the procurement of paddy through Direct Purchase Centres in Tiruvannamalai District in collusion with private persons/merchants by violating the procurement procedures and the guidelines issued by the TNCSC during the procurement period (Kariff Marketing Season) 2020-2021 between 01.10.2020 and 30.09.2021. On the complaint received from the Regional Manager of the TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.1 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 166, 167, 420 and 120(B) of IPC. During the course of investigation, after recording the statements from the witnesses, offences were altered to one under Sections 166, 167, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120(B) IPC.
3. Mr.V.Karthik, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.11295 of 2022, submitted that the petitioners, while working as a 1st petitioner/Deputy Regional Manager and the 2nd petitioner/Purchase Officer in the TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai Region, they colluded with the accused persons and obtained commission from the other accused persons, who were received commissions from the merchants while procuring the paddy.
4. He further submitted that the 1st petitioner is the Deputy Regional Manager of TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai Region, and the said post is only
administrative work and he never attend the duty of field investigation. So far, he has completed 25 years of unblemished services and also received certificate of commemoration from TNCSC including a certificate of appreciation. Therefore, he has nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution.
5. As far as the allegation against the 2nd petitioner is concerned, who
was in-charge of 42 purchase centres and procured paddy to the tune of Rs.12,77,91,712/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Seventy Seven Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve only) against the total procurement of paddy to the tune of Rs.235 Crores by obtaining Rs.80-150 per bag (40 Kgs) from the merchants as commission. He had no contact with other merchants and he has not at all involved in the offences as alleged by the prosecution.
6. He further submitted that they received notice under Section 41A
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police, and hence, filed these anticipatory bail petitions.
7. This Court rightly directed the petitioners to appear for enquiry to
be conducted by the respondent police and also ordered for interim protection from securing the petitioners. Accordingly the petitioners attended the enquiry conducted by the respondent herein. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and they may be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.11421 and 11311 of 2022 submitted that the petitioners have never involved in the offences directly as alleged by the prosecution and all the allegations are bald and vague and further there is no allegation in the FIR as against the petitioners.
9. Even according to the case of the prosecution, they received Rs.80
to 150 per bag (40 Kgs) from the merchants as commission and without prejudice to their right of defence, the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit a reasonable amount as directed by this Court.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.11750,
12492 and 12488 of 2022 submitted that the petitioners while working as Procurement Officers/Superintendents in TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai Region, during the period of allegation they were in-charge of 9, 8, 12 and 5 Direct Purchase Centres respectively and procured paddy from the merchants. They received Rs.80 to 150 per bag (40 Kgs) as commission from the merchants, without prejudice to their right of defence, they also ready and willing to deposit a reasonable amount as directed by this Court.
11. Heart both sides and perused the materials available on records.
12. On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it
revealed that the Government of Tamil Nadu provided facilities to the farmers for the purpose of purchasing paddy from the farmers so as to facilitate them in disposing of the paddy cropped by them. In this regard, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued instructions and also issued guidelines in a manual on paddy procurement from the farmers directly those who are having cultivating lands. As per the guidelines, the minimum support price for paddy is at Rs.1,888/- per quintal for Grade-A variety and Rs.1,868/- per quintal for common variety of paddy. The Government of Tamil Nadu also considering the welfare of the farmers and in order to avoid any distress in the sale of paddy, have decided to grant an incentive of Rs.70/- per quintal for Grade-A and Rs.50/- per quintal for common varieties of paddy.
13. While that been so, the officials/petitioners of TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai Region, colluded with the private merchants, fabricated and forged the land documents and certificates as if they are farmers and cultivated paddy and had sold out the paddy at several Direct Purchase Centres to the tune of huge sum of amount. All the merchants have no land to cultivate any crops and they raised bills in the name of merchants and their family members as if they have cultivated paddy from their respective agricultural land and supplied to TNCSC.
14. In fact, on collusion with the merchants, without even supplying
the paddy to the Direct Purchase Centres, they brought the paddy directly to the storage godowns, which is under the control of the TNCSC and the officials of TNCSC received huge sum as commission from the merchants.
15. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent also revealed that
the specific over tact of the each petitioner herein as follows;-
Sl.Nos. Petitioners/accused’s
name
& Crl.O.P.Nos. Overtacts of the petitioners/accused
1. S.Arulmozhi
Crl.O.P.No.11421/2022 He was working as Procurement
Officer/Superindent in TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai, during the period of allegation and who was in-charge of 13 DPCs and procured paddy to the tune of
Rs.27,50,61,609/-[Twenty Seven Crores
Fifty Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Six
Hundred and Nine] against the total

procurement of Rs.235 crores in the Region by obtaining Rs.80-150 per bag [40 Kgs] from the merchants as commission and the same was shared with the other officials/petitioners who were all responsible for paddy procurement. Thereby, the said S.Arulmozhi received several lakhs of Rupees as commission.
2. Basker
Crl.O.P.No.11311/ 2022 He was working as Procurement
Officer/Superintendent TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai during the period of allegation and who was in-charge of 10 DPCs and procured paddy to the tune of
Rs.29,10,32,246/-[Twenty Nine Crores Ten Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Six] against the total procurement of Rs.235 crores in the Region by obtaining Rs.80-150 per bag [40 Kgs] from the merchants as commission and the same was shared with the other officials/petitioners who were all responsible for paddy procurement. Thereby, he received several lakhs of Rupees as commission.
3. K.Palani & P.Kuppusamy
Crl.O.P.No.11295/2022 The said K.Palani & P.Kuppusamy were working as Deputy Regional Manager and Procurement Officer/Superintendent in
TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai, respectively,

during the period of allegation said Palani was looking over the administration (appointment of procurement officers and DPSs staffs for the entire district) and colluded with the other accused persons, obtained commission from the other accused who were received commission from merchants in the paddy procurement.
During the period of allegation, said Kuppusamy who was in-charge of 4 DPCs and procured paddy to the tune of Rs.12,77,91,712/- [Twelve Crores Seventy
Seven Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve] against the total procurement of Rs.235 Crores in the Region by obtaining Rs.80-150 per bag [40 Kgs] from the merchants as commission and the same was shared with the other officials/petitioner who were all responsible for paddy procurement. In this way, he received several lakhs of Rupees as commission.
4. G.Palani
Seenuvasan
Sankarapani
G.Palanivel They were working as Procurement
Officers/Superintendents TNCSC, Tiruvannamalai, during the period of allegation and who was in-charge of 9, 8, 12

Crl.O.P.Nos.11750, 12492,
& 12488/2022 & 5 DPCs and procured paddy to the tune of Rs.55,39,81,572/-, 36,01,26,810/-, 24,76,45,940/- and 19,28,13,100/- respectively against the total procurement of Rs.235 crores in the Region by obtaining Rs.80-150 per bag [40 Kgs] from the merchants as commission and the same was shared with the other officials/petitioners who were all responsible for paddy procurement. Thereby, they received several lakhs of Rupees as commission.
5. Arvindhan,
R.Pakkirisamy
Palanivel
Sunderesan
Ilayaraja
Prkasam
Crl.O.P.No.13029/2022 They are Assistants in TNCSC, Regional Office, Tiruvannamalai. During the period of allegation, they were all scrutinized the documents submitted by the officers and staff in paddy procurement and obtaining commission from the procurement officers.
6. Murugesan
Crl.O.P.No.12667/2022
Gopinath
Crl.O.P.No.12470/2022
Kamanathan
Crl.O.P.No.12567/2022 They are merchants and sold paddy in their name and in the name of their relatives and friends by using forged land documents as they are merchant and cultivated paddy with the collusion of TNCSC officials to offer commission to them Rs.80-150/- per bags [40 Kgs]. Since, the paddy rate in open market is very less compare with DPCs. So they sold paddy in DPCs in collusion with
Mahalakshmi & Sridhar
Crl.O.P.No.12572/2022
Perumal
Crl.O.P.No.12578/2022
Sasikala
Crl.O.P.No.13731/2022
Sivamurthy & Vijayakumar
Crl.O.P.No.14781/2022
Dhalakshmi
Crl.O.P.No.12082/2022 the officials and they cheated by the Government and the farmers for their personal gain.
By this way, the petitioners/accused were sold paddy in various DPCs in their name and in the name of their relatives as follows;-
i) Murugesan – Rs.52,82,467/- & his relatives names about Rs.5 crores. ii) Gopinath – Rs.44,24,479/ iii) Kamalanathan – Rs.34.75,058/ iv) Mahalakshmi – Rs.26,51,498/ v) Sridhar – Rs.30,68,980/ vi) Perumal – Rs.28,71,994/ vii) Sasikala – Rs.41,22,294/ viii) Sivamoorthy – Rs.28,64,059/ ix) Vijayakumar – Rs.22,96,386/ x) Dhalakshmi – Rs.29,19,769/-
16. That apart, the merchants are never possessed any agricultural
land to do agriculture to cultivate the paddy crop. However, they colluded with the officials/petitioners and prepared forged land records and certificates as if they cultivated and sold the paddy at Direct Purchase Centres. They generated bills in the name of the accused/petitioners and they had sent the paddy directly to the storage godowns without entering into the Direct Purchase Centres as directed by the officials of TNCSC. If the paddy would have been procured from small farmers, they would have been benefited from the minimum support price fixed by the Central Government with the incentives offered by the State Governments for quintal ranging from Rs.50 to 70. Further, the price of the paddy was different between the Direct Purchase Centres and open market ranging Rs.700 to 850. In the Direct Purchase Centres per quintal is Rs.1958/- whereas in open market it ranges from Rs.1100/- only therefore, all the accused persons gained over the difference amount. The private merchants have purchased paddy from the farmers in retail from the surrounding areas for very lower price and sold the same at higher price through the Direct Purchase Centres.
17. Though, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioners
and directed them to appear for enquiry, but the accused persons failed to reveal the real facts of the case and they have failed to produce any documents to show that they cultivated the paddy crops in their respective lands. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required in this case.
18. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of P.Chidambaram Vs. Direcorate of Enforcement passed in
Criminal Appeal.No.1340 of 2019 dated 05.09.2019, in which, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held that the Courts should exercise its power under Section 438 Cr.P.C sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. Thus all the offences are committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal regardless of the consequence to the community. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
aforesaid judgment stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the case on hand since these offences as alleged by the prosecution cannot be construed as economic offences.
20. However, as stated (supra) all the accused persons have committed very serious offence as against the society. Thereby, there is huge loss to the exchequer and also the benefits to the original farmers were denied. Thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required in this case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
21. Accordingly, all the criminal original petitions are dismissed.
08.07.2022 ata

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata

Crl.O.P.Nos.11421, 11311, 11295,
11750, 12492, 12488, 12667, 13029,
12567, 12570, 12572, 12578, 13731, 14781 & 12082 of 2022
08.07.2022